The Magazine

Gays More Likely to Be Left Handed

I’m quite late in addressing a finding published in July in Psychological Bulletin. As I was unable to find access to the original report, my sources linked here are second hand.

Psychology Today reports that Dr. Kenneth Zucker of the University of Toronto has found that gay men and women are more likely to be left-handed than the general public at large.

The findings, reported in the Psychological Bulletin, lesbians have a 91 percent greater chance of being left-handed or ambidextrous than straight women, while gay men are 34 percent more likely than straight men to not be right-handed.

There does not seem to be a causal relationship between sexual orientation and handedness. The vast majority of left-handed people are heterosexual and the vast majority of gay people are right-handed.

However, this finding is interesting considering the predominance of the claim from ex-gay ministries that “No one is born gay”. As Science Daily puts it:

The importance of these results lies in their theoretical implications. Handedness is determined early in development — probably before birth. Therefore, the correlation of handedness and sexual orientation demonstrates that at least some influences on adult sexual orientation operate quite early, maybe even before an individual is born. The results also suggest that there may be at least one cause of homosexuality that is common to both gay men and lesbian women. This is in contrast to much other biological research on sexual orientation, which has usually suggested that sexual orientation in men is influenced by different factors than sexual orientation in women.

It is my belief that sexual orientation is the result of a complex interplay of a number of factors, at least some of which are pre-birth. The determinants could include genes, hormones, and/or environmental factors. However, all credible sources suggest that these are set in place very early and, if not before birth (as I suspect), then within the first few years of life. The correlation between handedness and sexual orientation is consistent with that assumption.

NARTH reviewed the report and was unable to refute it. They did, however, caution that meta-analysis can be performed poorly (though they did not suggest that it was in this case) and that as the results were only 31% and 91% different from the control groups, this was intriguing but not decisive (Their 31% differs from the Psychology Today report of 34%):

The latest study is intriguing. Nevertheless, the main routes to homosexuality would not likely be through the route that has caused some people to be left-handed.

NARTH discounts the ever-growing preponderance of evidence that in at least some persons sexual orientation is primarily determined by pre-birth factors with a reference to “main routes”.

This study should cause more than a little concern for those seeking to instill cultural and legal preference for reorientation of sexuality. It serves as a stong linking reminder. Many people recall the efforts made to reorient left-handers to right-handed behavior. These efforts to force children to go against their natural inclinations led in many cases to serious problems.

As well as the obvious feelings of inadequacy and insecurity this produced, left-handed children that were forced to switch to use of the right hand often experienced bed-wetting and developed speech impediments.

Also, (similarly to most ex-gay efforts) they didn’t work.

Fortunately left-handedness is no longer viewed as sinister (pun intended) or a defect in and of itself. The efforts to make left-handed children use their right hand have come to be viewed as unnecessary and cruel. And though there is no identifiable genetic “cause” of left-handedness, most people have come to see it as “natural”. Eventually, I believe, sexual orientation will come to be viewed the same.

Ya know what Timothy,
It would seem that such a conclusion is valid to come to NOW, not eventually…whenever the HELL that is!

I still can’t get over straight people even arguing with gay people about when they knew they were gay.
Or whether it’s a choice or not.
It’s boggled the s**t out of me every time I hear straight people try to TELL gay people what they are, instead of the other way around.

Now, there conclusive studies about lefties has also shown that we have a different congnizant approach to tasks and critical thinking.
Well, yeah…we utilize the opposite side of the brain, and therefore whatever centers are located there.

There was also one about the higher death rates in accidents for lefty people too once upon a time.
Easily explained by the way tools, roads and most other conveniences and conveyances are for the majority right handed.
So, by that logic, if gay people seem maladjusted to straight people, it’s because of living in a world arranged around heterosexuality and not any other orientation.
Brutally arranged around it too.

Some days you just want to go DUH!
Why ignore the big, fat, dancing pink elephant doing a cha cha all over the room?!

I can remember back to the early 70’s when enough gay people had emerged that large scale studies could be done. The tendency to lefthandedness showed up very quickly. I was on a softball team (Touche, Chicago)where something like half the members were left handed. This has been observed for over 30 years. These crude early serveys pointed the way to showing that gayness is inate, not something learned. For most people at least. It also allowed the emergence of other characteristics which could be recorded from large groups of people.

The NARTH ref is to a “Dr Neil Whitehead”.For those who don’t know the author of “My Genes Made Me Do It”… he’s New Zealand’s answer to Paul Cameron or Jeffrey Satinover. What a claim to fame.Touted as a PhD in BioChemistry — and that must be an expert on genes, isn’t it? — he’s in fact just a Baptist loon connected to all the nasty elements on the NZ right.Now, people, add this to the list of deceitful practices — Neil Whitehead works for the Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences; a group that study earthquakes etc.Whitehead is NOT an expert in genetics.In fact, he’s not even remotely associated with any gene research.This, of course, has not stopped him — or Exodus, NARTH etc — presenting him as such.Neil Whitehead also made a submission to the parliamentary committee studing the Relationships and Civil Union Bills in which he so distorted the work of real researchers (hence, the resemblance to Paul Cameron) that a furious reply was sent from from one of the misrepresented:

Dr Whitehead’s claims about the potential impact of the Civil Unions Bill can, quite fairly and with due respect for the passion of his convictions, be rejected. His argument is flawed. His “research method” seems little more sophisticated than joining dots on a two-dimensional plane. He superficially
connects observations from some published studies of genetic and environmental factors in human sexuality and mental health. The pattern that emerges is a distorted caricature of existing knowledge that lacks depth and complexity. It adds nothing to serious, informed debate about the nature of homosexuality or the ways in which a civil society should formulate law.The essential problem is that Dr Whitehead’s research is quasi-science. He has strayed far beyond his field of expertise. His training and professional experience, and his publications in academic journals, are almost entirely in geological and nuclear science. I conducted an exhaustive search of his research
papers listed by Thompson ISI Web of Science (the international standard search tool for scientific information). Although Dr Whitehead claims he has researched the field of sexuality for 13 years, this effort has been entirely unproductive. My search revealed no empirical study of human sexuality and indeed no systematic review on the topic that has been accepted by internationally recognised, peerreviewed journals. His three books are populist and are not published by mainstream academic publishers that require scientific review. Thus, they are not regarded as serious works in the field of human sexuality.

(sorry Mike I don’t have an immediate link through to the NZ Parliamentary Clerk — but that response to Whitehead was from Dr Michael Dunne of QUT School of Public Health.)And if you have any remaining doubt that Whitehead knows diddly-squat about genetics: he claims

“If homosexuality were genetic, identical co-twins of homosexual men and women would also be homosexual 100% of the time, but they aren’t.”

Oh, that old misunderstanding that just goes to prove the speaker is ignorant on the subject. There’s a little matter of “penetrance” you moron!

Psych Bull (as it’s fondly known) is the largest and most respected journal in psychology. It has no shortage of editors and publishes a lot of behavioural genetics research. Certainly, it doesn’t publish a paper without thorough reviewing. Everyone knows its a tough journal to get into.

I think its just pure paranoia on his part to say that the target audience are psychotherapists working with gay clients – part of the homosexual agenda, I suppose?! Most of the papers in Psych Bullare quite long and technical and most practicing clinicians that I know don’t have time to wade through it. Besides, of what relevance would it be to a psychotherapist? Oh look you’re gay, and left-handed….so?!

And as to “If homosexuality were genetic, identical co-twins of homosexual men and women would also be homosexual 100% of the time, but they aren’t.” Whoops and DOH!

As I’ve mentioned, I don’t think finding a certain genetic link means much.
The fact that there is no ABERRANT gene or missing one or anything abnormal showing up NOW is enough evidence that homosexuality isn’t an abnormality.
Indeed, gender and color are genetic and didn’t and still doesn’t protect an individual in a group from a majority human group bent on segregation and dominance.
If a gene that proved a genetic link to homosexuality is found, one would then ask…NOW WHAT?

Human rights, civil protection and rights is a done deal.

And as gay folks have made their presence and mission known, the response has been to dig in and change ALL the rules, even the most basic that all human citizens are endowed with basic rights.
Science may NEVER find a genetic marker prominent enough to distinguish homosexuality.
It’s the MEANTIME that matters.

Nobody should have to wait on THAT much evidence of one’s humanity to present itself.
And the anti gay use any and every excuse possible, however illogical or irrational to not accept gay people AS equals…
And whatever clear science, experience and evidence that shows that gay people definitely ARE equal enough where it matters.

It’s time enough and fair enough to tell the anti gay crowd that now enough is enough.

The original article can be found in the Psychological Bulletin (2000), Vol. 126, No. 4, 575-592.
The article was available online but has been removed. I happen to have it on pdf if anyone needs a copy.
One of the suggestions given considers that neo-natal exposure to sex hormones in the womb might affect handedness. This has been considered to be one of the predisposing factors in sexual orientation also.

Hi contemplative activist,I’d be happy to read the paper (or rather, have a copy togther with Whitehead’s comments)… but the email addy is bouncing. We can be got at grantdalexgw.hotmail.com if that helps.tks in advance

The primary objection to gay rights and gay equality in society today is founded mainly on religious grounds. The religious response, particularly Christian, to this is: so what? I am sure you have all heard it said that alcoholism can be genetic, but that doesn’t excuse it.

I certainly do not mean to make the same comparison and I think that the connection to handedness is a historically poignant and relevant comparison to make; but this will not help with lifting the burden or changing the minds of those who still oppose homosexuals.

The interesting — and awkward for NARTH — issues with handedness (or finger length, or startle response eye-blinking etc etc) is that these are all identified as determined pre-birth.How, or why, the genetic influences are switched on or off — say, by hormone levels while in-utero — is what gene researchers refer to as “environmental factors”.Bad, bad psychologists (who have no background in genetics) and too many others that are supportive of the ex-gay groups typically, and IMO deliberately, distort the use of “environmental factors” and link through to some nonsense about distant fathers/smothering mothers. That is NOT what is meant by environmental influences.

NARTH’s A. Dean Byrd doing just that, for the Salt Lake City Tribune.[1]Focus on the Family, using that op-ed to do just that [2]Alan Medinger doing just that, in 1992 (gawd, they’re like a broken record) [3]Exodus, pretending to be an expert body [4]Another one from Whitehead at NARTH [5]

We could go on but it’s really too common and tedious. Google “homosexuality 100% twins” and see who’s names pop up…

Cyrano (and Regan earlier),I’d completely agree that knowing any biological basis will have very little to do with the core anti-gay opinions. Who refutes that kin colour is genetic — and yet racism continues to thrive.I do find the paralleling with alcoholism to be an interesting one.And I always point out that these anti-gay people aren’t just against alcoholicm… they are against anyone so much as having a sip of water.Somewhat oddly, a quick trawl through the ex-gay testimonies rapidly compiles a list of people who behaved like sexual alcoholics (and many times actual alcohol and drug abuse). Instead of sensibly having a glass of water, a decent cuppa, or a few glasses of wine with dinner — they were the type to drain the keg, and then start sipping out of the bar trough and sucking on the bar mats.I think that many exhibit the same behaviour when it comes to religion; extreme and controlling.

Speaking of interesting papers, I don’t see NARTH commenting on this one that was published in September 05, which suggests that friendships amongst homosexual & bisexual adolescents protects against psychological distress:

CA — thanks, and I also received one from Jimbo. First none, then a flood — I feel like the Pharoah of Egypt, to get all biblical on you :)NARTH, but I guess you already know this, are not really interested in knowing the subject.They draw attention to studies for one of three reasons:Some “study” supports the social/political view of bi/homosexuality that they wish the public to hold. These are generally some undergrad level effort by their own people.The study is by genuine researchers, but can or has been manipulated to the general public (classic: Spitzer’s telephone interview of 200 ex-gays that was pre-audited by Nicolosi)It is a genuine study that undercuts their social/political viewpoint. These only get commented on by NARTH if picked up in the media etc, and NARTH’s comments will be wholly negative.Your observations about the implications from Ueno are correct, and I guess NARTH will comment if and when the LA Times or someone bother to first offer a few column inches. Only then will further promotion of the study — albeit to cast doubt — be in NARTH’s interest.

Foster,
you’re embarrassing yourself.
You’re showing your inability to deal with this group maturely.
If you’re representing someone improved by becoming exgay…you’ve seriously missed the mark.
This is why I am very unimpressed with you, and ex gays in general.
Keep up the name calling towards me if you want.
Throw cheap shots in here because there is no action at YOUR site.
It just makes you look weird.
I’ve been through a lot in my life, and I struggle everyday with some very serious physical problems…and I’m still standing-and I never had to take it out on anyone.

Or ever give up who I really am in the process.
I don’t think becoming ex gay is all that big an accomplishment. Especially if it makes you disdainful and ugly towards gay folks and those who support and defend them, like me.

Go ahead and entertain yourself at our expense.
And preoccupy yourself with trifles.
Evidently you have nothing better to do.
And that is exactly the point.

I didn’t really need to read this, I guess. Yes, I’m gay AND left handed. But I guess I link being left handed MORE with being “artistic”. If you really want to blow your mind, start looking at all the actors and actress (is that still pc?) that are left handed. Look at some of the more controversial painters…again, many are left handed. I have a parent and two siblings that are left handed (a brother and a sister). My mother remembers being a small child in school and being subjected to intense pressure to switch. She was no more able to start writing with her right hand, than I am to likely to develop an interest in the opposite sex.
As far as people arguing with me as to the time I first realized I was gay, 99 times out of 100 it is gay men/lesbians who can’t believe it was before puberty. Maybe heterosexuals I have run into are still a bit surprized by the whole idea to doubt my earliest recollections.